United 767 hits bread truck at EWR

[Sluggo63]

Regardless of what was trained or planned, even if he had been WRRR, he would have still cleared the pole and highway. They were RRRR+ and unstable and both should have seen the need to correct and/or go around long before they were over the highway.

100% agree. No argument here on that.

 

[3393RP]

I’m going to take the position that since the airplane hit an obstacle on the approach the FO should have called for a go around much earlier.

If we want to get right to the nuggets of it I also think the FO should have raised some questions during the brief. When the captain discussed flying intentionally low on the path there should have been objection. Not just acceptance. It would have made it much easier to call the go around.

If the FO accepted the intention to fly low on the approach then the GA would have been longer in processing time since they were expecting a low profile based on the briefing.

The FO role is difficult. Have to be a bit of a chameleon to get along with everyone yet still hold the line for standards when an idiot captain tells you they will intentionally fly 3 read into LGA.

Unfortunately on this day the FO missed the mark. Even more unfortunately they didn’t get the opportunity to learn this lesson without incident like so many of us have. Fortunately they did learn it without any injury to people or career.

As one of my mentors told me in the terminal one day when I was asking for advice regarding a difficult captain “Dave, you have to learn how to step on his toes without scuffing the shine on his shoes.”

This FO needed to step a little harder and earlier. In my humble opinion the foundation for this was laid during the briefing.

Although I guess it’s good the FO was thinking about a go around while the airplane was hitting the light pole.

The captain didn't share his intention to fly three reds with the FO.

The captain stated they had no CRM [crew resource management] issues on the flight. The captain was not concerned about the approach. He stated that he expected to fly the final portion of the approach at 3 red and 1 white on the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). This was his desired sight picture for runway 29. The CVR did not capture any discussion of PAPI lights for runway 29 prior to landing.

 

[Lindberg]

The captain didn't share his intention to fly three reds with the FO.

The captain stated they had no CRM [crew resource management] issues on the flight. The captain was not concerned about the approach. He stated that he expected to fly the final portion of the approach at 3 red and 1 white on the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). This was his desired sight picture for runway 29. The CVR did not capture any discussion of PAPI lights for runway 29 prior to landing.

This is a point that the NTSB made more than once. And yet somehow they both told the same story after the fact.

On a completely unrelated topic, what's the penalty for conspiring to interfere in an NTSB investigation?

 

[Tarheelpilot]

The captain didn't share his intention to fly three reds with the FO.

The captain stated they had no CRM [crew resource management] issues on the flight. The captain was not concerned about the approach. He stated that he expected to fly the final portion of the approach at 3 red and 1 white on the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). This was his desired sight picture for runway 29. The CVR did not capture any discussion of PAPI lights for runway 29 prior to landing.

Even worse.

 

[3393RP]

"At 500 ft, the first officer stated, they were on speed and on profile, and the captain was maintaining his planned profile of 3 red and 1 white on the PAPI. Once again, the CVR did not capture any discussion of PAPI lights for runway 29 prior to landing."

At 500 ft, the NTSB says they were actually well above the glide slope. And how did he know that the captain was aiming for three reds if the CVR never captured any discussion of that? Is the NTSB implying something?

You've made the assumption that the NTSB's verbiage in the sentence after the third comma was something the FO said. It is not. The sentence is merely narrative. As for the second sentence, for the second time in the preliminary report, it was emphasized the captain's intention to fly RRRW was never mentioned in the CVR recording.

This emphasis was employed to make it clear the FO had no prior knowledge of the captain's intentions.

This is a point that the NTSB made more than once. And yet somehow they both told the same story after the fact.

On a completely unrelated topic, what's the penalty for conspiring to interfere in an NTSB investigation?

They didn't "[tell] the same story after the fact." There was no collusion or conspiracy.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

You've made the assumption that the NTSB's verbiage in the sentence after the third comma was something the FO said. It is not. The sentence is merely narrative. As for the second sentence, for the second time in the preliminary report, it was emphasized the captain's intention to fly RRRW was never mentioned in the CVR recording.

This emphasis was employed to make it clear the FO had no prior knowledge of the captain's intentions.



They didn't "[tell] the same story after the fact." There was no collusion or conspiracy.

Man if there was ever a time to get the story straight…

 

[farmrjohn]

Strange there was no mention of what the bunkie was doing during the final approach. They're supposed to be an active part of the crew during takeoff and landing, and that includes monitoring the approach.

 

[Lindberg]

You've made the assumption that the NTSB's verbiage in the sentence after the third comma was something the FO said.

I'm not assuming. That's what's written.

It is not. The sentence is merely narrative.

Why would the narrative include a fact that isn't true? The graph shows that at 500' they were above the glideslope.

As for the second sentence, for the second time in the preliminary report, it was emphasized the captain's intention to fly RRRW was never mentioned in the CVR recording.

Correct.

This emphasis was employed to make it clear the FO had no prior knowledge of the captain's intentions.

Correct.

They didn't "[tell] the same story after the fact."

Are you sure? If the FO admits that he didn't know the captains intentions, how would he explain not calling a go around much earlier in the approach?

 

[jayhawk74]

The FO may have known from previous flights with that Capt that the Captain's technique was to fly RRRW. So there being no mention of it on the CVR wouldn't be a concern.

 

[3393RP]

I'm not assuming. That's what's written.

If you don't know composition rules about sentence structure, there's no point in further response.

 

[JimLAFB]

If you don't know composition rules about sentence structure, there's no point in further response.

I don't know composition rules but the "and" has me thinking the FO said that. Why would the NTSB say they were maintaining RRRW at 500' when the NTSB has a plot showing they were high at 500'?

 

[3393RP]

I don't know composition rules but the "and" has me thinking the FO said that. Why would the NTSB say they were maintaining RRRW at 500' when the NTSB has a plot showing they were high at 500'?

It should be read like this:

"At 500 ft, the first officer stated, they were on speed and on profile, and the captain was maintaining his planned profile of 3 red and 1 white on the PAPI.

It's one sentence, but it makes two unrelated statements. Read in that manner, it becomes clear the FO thought the aircraft speed and descent path was nominal, while the pilot was on target with the profile he had planned to fly. The NTSB wasn't making a comment about the aircraft's altitude at the moment, they determined it was descending at a rate consistent with a RRRW profile. The NTSB made this murky with their phrasing, but the intent is clear. Additionally, since the report emphatically stated for a second time in the next sentence the FO had no knowledge of the captain's intent to descend on a RRRW profile, it cannot be read that the FO made both statements to investigators.

This confusion could have been avoided if instead of a comma, a period had been placed after the investigators related what the FO stated, and a new sentence had been used for the second statement.

I'm sure someone will want to further argue about this, my position is that the final report will have more clarity about the issue.

 

[Lindberg]

This confusion could have been avoided if instead of a comma, a period had been placed after the investigators related what the FO stated, and a new sentence had been used for the second statement

Yes, it they wanted it to mean what you seen to think it means. Why do you think "the first officer stated" modifies only the following clause and not "at 500 ft"? If that were the case, there'd be no need for a comma after. I can't say for certain what the NTSB meant, but I can read what they wrote.

 

[JimLAFB]

This confusion could have been avoided if instead of a comma, a period had been placed after the investigators related what the FO stated, and a new sentence had been used for the second statement.

That "new" sentence would have been contrary to what they knew per the graphic. That at 500' the airplane was high. Did they not know what they knew or did they quote the FO with a grammatically confusing sentence?

 

[3393RP]

That "new" sentence would have been contrary to what they knew per the graphic. That at 500' the airplane was high. Did they not know what they knew or did they quote the FO with a grammatically confusing sentence?

Forget the graphic. It has absolutely nothing to do with the statement in the preliminary. The FO told them what the aircraft was doing when he saw 500' on the RA. That's what was written. The NTSB added the comment the descent was consistent with a RRRW profile.

 

[3393RP]

Yes, it they wanted it to mean what you seen to think it means. Why do you think "the first officer stated" modifies only the following clause and not "at 500 ft"? If that were the case, there'd be no need for a comma after. I can't say for certain what the NTSB meant, but I can read what they wrote.

I don't think that because that's not what it says. See those nice blue colors I used above? The FO told the investigators when the aircraft was at 500' per the RA, it was on speed and on the nominal descent profile. He was looking at the instruments. He wasn't looking at the PAPI, and he didn't know the pilot's intentions on using a nonstandard profile. The NTSB thought that fact was important enough to say it twice. See the nice red colors? That's the NTSB saying the pilot was flying RRRW as he had planned.

 

[TrueCourse]

Is it possible sentence structure has created confusion? Is it possible the author of the report was not a skilled writer and the intent of the sentence was misunderstood and the truth was lost? Surely, I hope not. Hey, don’t call me Shirley.

If the lack of an NTSB inspector or report writer’s skills has surfaced they need some remedial education.

I believe the report as written is stating the FO said everything in those sentences. There was no briefing about PAPI lights but the FO stated the Captain was flying according to his plan. I will tuck my tail and accept a corrected report on this, but I’ve got my money on WYSIWYG. Now, if AI was used to write it, help us all.

 

[dmspilot]

It's a preliminary report and subject to mistakes. I've seen some pretty noticeable errors even in final reports.

 

[Lindberg]

That's the NTSB saying the pilot was flying RRRW as he had planned.

But the captain wasn't flying RRRW "as he had planned." So why would the NTSB say he was? And if the FO professed no knowledge of that plan, the NTSB could have said so at any point rather than leaving it ambiguous. It could just be unclear drafting, but it seems consistent. I guess we'll know for sure when the docket is released.

 

[Palmpilot]

I found the following discussion of the preliminary report interesting, although the discussion here is probably more thorough.